Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[origin]

SpeedFreak, EU stands for electric universe :roll:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Harry my friend. Every new post you are making seems less coherent than the one before, your links have less relation to whatever point you are trying to make (since we can only guess, you never answer direct questions about what the point you are tring to make is) and your use of the thunderbolt site as a serious source for scientific data has irreparably damaged the small amount of credibility you had. Are you associated with the thunderbolt site? That's the only reason I can imagine for bringing that in as a reference into an allegedly serious scientific discussion.

Only the fact that this discussion is in the Unexplained has prevented it from being closed as totally pointless.

 

[SpeedFreek]

SpeedFreak, EU stands for electric universe :roll:

Yup, I know what EU stands for, but I don't see a link from "there".

 

[MeteorWayne]

I didn't know the European Union was involved in astronomy!

 

[origin]

SpeedFreak, EU stands for electric universe :roll:

Yup, I know what EU stands for, but I don't see a link from "there".

Oh, yes I see what your point was, there is no there, there. Er something like that.

 

[vladdrac]

Exactly

it is an infinitely dense point...some kind of "unobtainium" in an infinite sea of points under infinite pressure. Once a certain velocity is reached a Universe pops into being. If one could look from far 'outside' infinity one would see an infinite series of spheres each expanding and contracting slightly showing very different states at each stage of expansion and contraction...the point converts to energy...it is not exactly big bang or big crunch

Are you talking about the multiple universe theory? I saw something like that on the TV show the Universe on channel 120 dish network.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day


Hello Meteorwayne

I'm not associated with any sites. Although thunderbolts has posted some interesting points.

Science issues should not be grouped into clubs.

The points that I post are science related.

Does it matter where the science comes from?


Hello Speedfreek

Mate the issue was deep field images that show various forms of galaxy large and small fully evolved at 13.2 G Light yrs. The point is how can such galaxies (over 300 billion galaxies estimated by NASA Hubble site) form in just 500 million years, assuming that the BBT is correct at 13.7 Gyrs age of the universe.

Please rather then attacking the whatever attact the issue.

 

[drwayne]

"Does it matter where the science comes from?"

Absolutely.

There are many sources (journals, web sites) that publish material that superficially looks like important
research, but upon closer examination is highly questionable.

I know of sites and individuals who claim great expertise in certain areas, and put on a good song and
dance, and can "toss a great word salad" - but when you really look at what they are doing, they are
clueless. (Example - and individual who claimed great expertize in nuclear physics - but didn't have
a clue about why the binding energy per nucleon curve is important).

In doing background research, one MUST weigh not only what is being said, but who is saying it.

 

[origin]

The point is how can such galaxies (over 300 billion galaxies estimated by NASA Hubble site) form in just 500 million years, assuming that the BBT is correct at 13.7 Gyrs age of the universe.

That's odd because the oldest galaxy ever discovered was found by the hubble this month and it is from around 600 million years after the big bang.

How can a galaxy form in just 600 million years? Well, I guess my question is, "how long should it take"? And I would also like to point out that 600 million years is a fairly lengthy period of time.

 

[neuvik]

Hold on, Harry I want to know how you come to the conclusion that red shift data is in error. [edited out critique of other board/forum. -dh]

They did however...and you, take a quote out of context from Hubble when he was garnering support for a 200 inch telescope 62 years ago. You interestingly enough didn't quote the full sentence too, which reads...

"If they are valid, it seems likely that red shifts may not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the current speculation structure of the universe may require examination."

That from http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 5.000.html
Last paragraph on document 165, and first paragraph on page 166.

You know....you seem familiar. See someone else posted that same quote from Hubble, out of context from his article, and without the first part of the sentence. Yea...funny thing, the douche was banned from UniverseToday.com for trolling; his name was OilIsMastery, and Total Science.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Hello Speedfreek

Mate the issue was deep field images that show various forms of galaxy large and small fully evolved at 13.2 G Light yrs. The point is how can such galaxies (over 300 billion galaxies estimated by NASA Hubble site) form in just 500 million years, assuming that the BBT is correct at 13.7 Gyrs age of the universe.

Please rather then attacking the whatever attact the issue.

I would rather attack misinformation. You implied that the galaxy in question was 8 times the size of the Milky-Way therefore was a giant galaxy, and thunderbolts shows a picture of a fully formed spiral galaxy in that article, which I think is very misleading. I can find no record of any such object, which is why I asked for the source. We have seen no object from t=500 million years, as far as I am aware.

Now then, let's look at the highest redshift objects we have observed.

The highest confirmed redshift for a galaxy so far is z=6.96, and that galaxy is called IOK-1. We see it as it was 780 million years after the Big-Bang, according to the team at Subaru.

Here is a photo of it:

And here is the press release:
Cosmic Archeology Uncovers the Universe’s Dark Ages

We have as of yet unconfirmed sightings of galaxies with slightly higher redshifts than that, for instance A1689-zD1 with a redshift of z=7.6 which equates to around 700 million years after the Big-Bang:

It is a dim blob.

Here is the press release:
Astronomers Eye Ultra-Young, Bright Galaxy in Early Universe

Then there are Gamma Ray Bursts with redshifts speculatively measured to be up to z=8.2, such as GRB 090423. This equates to a time around 630 million years after the Big-Bang.

Here it is:

And the press release:
New Gamma-Ray Burst Smashes Cosmic Distance Record
This data was released earlier this year.

I have read recently that Hubble has turned up an extremely distant incredibly dim blob at something around t=600 million years, but I read nothing about it looking like a "giant galaxy", as you put it.

If you read those press releases you will get a lot of information as to current theories about the formation of the earliest galaxies in the universe. This information is far more reliable than the opinions posted at thunderbolts, who confuse and misuse terms from cosmology - they are actually misrepresenting the mainstream view in that article, then arguing against a misrepresentation (a straw man argument).

So, once again, what "giant galaxy" are they talking about at thunderbolts?

This is what they said:

What is actually observed is a small, faint galaxy whose light is highly redshifted. The erroneous assumption is that redshift indicates distance. Hence, the high redshift means the galaxy is far, far away. To appear as big as it does and as bright as it does at that distance, it must be ultra-big and ultra-bright.

Either that, or it was close to us at the time the light was emitted, which is the actual mainstream view.


I suppose I should point out that current theory posits that the earliest galaxies actually would be quite massive, but quite small.

The images reveal bright, dense clumps of hundreds of millions of massive stars in a compact region about 2,000 light-years across, which is only a fraction of the width of our Milky Way Galaxy. This type of galaxy is not uncommon in the early universe, when the bulk of star formation was taking place

Whereas you said:

they have found galaxies 8 times the size of the Milky Way and if you know anything about the formation of our solar sytem (about 5 Billion yrs) there is no way in hell that a giant galaxy can form in just 700 million years

Remember, the universe was more dense back then than it is today, so early galaxies would be massive, but quite small and very close together in the past. Thus we see them looking relatively big, because they were actually quite close to us, back then.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

Just keep reading and questioning in time you will make a scientific observation of what is actually happening.

In my opinion NASA/Hubble have got it wrong and I have emailed them explaining the same.

To assume that a theory is a fact and then proceed to fit the observations to the theory as facts is not very scientific.

At the end of the day, I just want you to keep on reading and questioning.

Even a dead log can float down mainstream.

 

[SpeedFreek]

To assume that a theory is a fact and then proceed to fit the observations to the theory as facts is not very scientific.

Another straw man argument. :roll:

That is not what science does. Science takes observations, finds a theory to explain them, sees what other predictions that theory makes, and looks for evidence of those predictions. The more evidence, the better the theory.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

I agree with what you say, but! and there is always a but!!!!!.

History repeats itself time and time again.

Read and learn don't take any copper coins.

I came across this link by ESA

Starformation in filaments

Inside the dark heart of the Eagle
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMT0T9K73G_index_0.html

Embedded within the dusty filaments in the Aquila image are 700 condensations of dust and gas that will eventually become stars. Astronomers estimate that about 100 are protostars, celestial objects in the final stages of formation. Each one just needs to ignite nuclear fusion in its core to become a true star. The other 600 objects are insufficiently developed to be considered protostars, but these too will eventually become another generation of stars.

Understanding how these filaments form and how star form within them will unfold the secrets of the universe.

I thought it was interesting to share.

 

[MeteorWayne]

But, sadly, as usual, totally unrelated to the topic. As your behaviour becomes more troll like, it has attracted more attention from the moderators.... Think about it.

Answer specific questions with specific answers, not unrelated links. Just a friendly suggestion.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day MeteorWayne


I do not understand your post
What part is not related?

 

[MeteorWayne]

The Link.

 

[SpeedFreek]

The link is not related to the topic - Big Bang or No Bang. What does the formation of stars in filaments have to do with the question of the origins of the universe? What happened to the discussion about "giant" galaxies?

At the end of the day, I just want you to keep on reading and questioning.

That seems to be your job, reading and questioning. But where is the understanding?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Speedfreek said

Whereas you said:

harrycostas wrote:
they have found galaxies 8 times the size of the Milky Way and if you know anything about the formation of our solar sytem (about 5 Billion yrs) there is no way in hell that a giant galaxy can form in just 700 million years
Remember, the universe was more dense back then than it is today, so early galaxies would be massive, but quite small and very close together in the past. Thus we see them looking relatively big, because they were actually quite close to us, back then.

Do you understand you logic for this type of monster to form in just a few hundred million years. This is what is called ad hoc ideas to make things work. Do you have any understanding of the complexity of such a galaxy. Even to form a galaxy one tenth the size of our galaxy would be impossible. Looking at some of the clusters of stars that contain ove a million stars found in our MW would be impossible to form in just a few hundred years.

As for the link, filimintation that occurs from galaxies and in many case connecting them hold the key to the ongoing workings of the parts within the universe. Their understanding is omnipotent information.
NASA hubble show many images indicating the same.
Also I felt it was interesting enough to share the link as basic informtion in star formation, that star can be formed without a big bang.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Do you understand you logic for this type of monster to form in just a few hundred million years. This is what is called ad hoc ideas to make things work. Do you have any understanding of the complexity of such a galaxy. Even to form a galaxy one tenth the size of our galaxy would be impossible. Looking at some of the clusters of stars that contain ove a million stars found in our MW would be impossible to form in just a few hundred years.

You do understand the difference between a few hundred years and a few hundred million years, don't you?

It is not so hard to understand how massive structures can have formed in half a billion years (can you even comprehend how long 500 million years is?), as when all the stars formed they would have been close together as the density of the universe was a lot higher when the universe was a lot smaller. As soon as gravity has brought enough mass together to create star forming regions and stars start to form, you have galaxies. The more stars that form in a certain area, the denser the galaxy. Where there is less density of matter, and less stars form, you have the beginnings of gaps between the galaxies and gravity does the rest, pulling the galaxies together, as the expansion causes the gaps between them to increase as the gravitational field in those gaps decreases.

Why do you think galaxies (which are simply gravitationally bound clusters of stars) would take any longer to form? Why do you say it is impossible for galaxies full of stars to have formed in half a billion years?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

You said:

It is not so hard to understand how massive structures can have formed in half a billion years (can you even comprehend how long 500 million years is?), as when all the stars formed they would have been close together as the density of the universe was a lot higher when the universe was a lot smaller. As soon as gravity has brought enough mass together to create star forming regions and stars start to form, you have galaxies. The more stars that form in a certain area, the denser the galaxy. Where there is less density of matter, and less stars form, you have the beginnings of gaps between the galaxies and gravity does the rest, pulling the galaxies together, as the expansion causes the gaps between them to increase as the gravitational field in those gaps decreases.

You have no idea of star formation and galaxy evolution.

You are saying that stars in trillions and trillions and trillions over 300 billion galaxies in the observable universe form in just 500 million years. That is wishing on a star.

Mate you need to get some information about cosmology. If you do not want to take my word for it. Thats OK.

Informations about the centre of a galaxy. Lets look at the Milky Way to begin with.
Yes this is on the subject.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc ... skytel.pdf

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

ESA estimates a number of stars and the number of galaxies. The estimate although can be questioned it gives us a huge number to work with and from this we can calculate the complexity of the known universe.

How many stars are there in the Universe?
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_index_0.html

Stars are not scattered randomly through space, they are gathered together into vast groups known as galaxies. The Sun belongs to a galaxy called the Milky Way. Astronomers estimate there are about 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way alone. Outside that, there are millions upon millions of other galaxies also!

The numbver is very conservative.

The issue that cannot be answered by the BBT is how could this complexity form in just 13.7 Billion years let alone 500 billion years compared to the formation of our solar system 5 billion years from a previous sun that exploded.

 

[SpeedFreek]

You have no idea of star formation and galaxy evolution.

You are saying that stars in trillions and trillions and trillions over 300 billion galaxies in the observable universe form in just 500 million years. That is wishing on a star.

Mate you need to get some information about cosmology. If you do not want to take my word for it. Thats OK.

Informations about the centre of a galaxy. Lets look at the Milky Way to begin with.
Yes this is on the subject.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc ... skytel.pdf

You have no idea about galaxy formation and yet you attack the mainstream. Your argument is not with me, it is with the majority of scientists who study these things. If you think that galaxies cannot have formed within half a billion years, rather than simply saying it is impossible, tell us why it is impossible.

I will ask you again.

Why do you think all those galaxies could not have formed after half a billion years? Give me an answer.

 

[SpeedFreek]

The issue that cannot be answered by the BBT is how could this complexity form in just 13.7 Billion years let alone 500 billion years compared to the formation of our solar system 5 billion years from a previous sun that exploded.

You do know that earlier generations of stars had much shorter lives than later generations, as they were comprised of simpler elements, don't you? No? Well you should go and actually study this stuff, rather than continuing to make assertions based on... based on... no, hang on, you haven't said what you base your conclusions on, except for some crackpot ideas with no actual basis in science.

The BBT has a few viable models for galaxy formation, based on known science. Take the Max Planck institute, for instance, where they take what we already think we know about physics and apply it to science of the universe to work out how it evolved:
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/ ... illennium/

At the above link is a description of a computer simulation showing how the universe would evolve, based on current science. The picture above shows a small section of the universe 13.7 billion years after it began...

Then compare that with a plot of our local region, made using measured redshifts:

Ta-daa!! It's a pretty good match, is it not? :lol:

Whenever I ask you questions, based on your previous replies, you always sidestep the issue and then post a link to an article or paper about a completely different aspect of the issue at hand. I answer your questions, sometimes quite fully, so why won't you answer mine or anyone elses? All you say is read and question, but as I said, you have no real understanding of the issues and refuse to listen to what people are telling you.

Rather than coming up with a reason to question mainstream theory, you simply assert it is wrong, but give no reason why. Why is it impossible? I would listen to you if you started giving reasons, rather than making simple assertions with seemingly no foundation (if they have a foundation, please enlighten us as to what it is).

Until you do, this one sided conversation is pointless.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

You said

You do know that earlier generations of stars had much shorter lives than later generations, as they were comprised of simpler elements, don't you? No? Well you should go and actually study this stuff, rather than continuing to make assertions based on... based on... no, hang on, you haven't said what you base your conclusions on, except for some crackpot ideas with no actual basis in science.

You are assuming that the universe had an origin such as the Big Bang and from this you assume there was early star formation. The point that you do not understand is that there was no start and there will be no end. If you study star formation and galaxy evolution you will find the various phases that stars under go, this is common info and also galaxy evolution and mergers and their various forms.

What conclusions I have, have not been concluded. If I have I would know the secrets of the universe.

What I'm reading now is on 2SC, CFL and CSL Phase and Chiral Symmetry Breaking trying to understand the formation of jets originating from the properties of Quarks.

As for mainstream thinking, is not my concern, science is. I do not like going with the flow unless it is backed by science.